K.N.BASHA,CHAIRMAN - (1.) ALL these appeals arising out of the common order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated 30/4/2010. The appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH is the patentee and in other matters the appellants are the parties who have opposed the grant of patent to the appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH.
(2.) MR . Rahul Balaji the learned counsel for the appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH would mainly contend that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The learned counsel in order to substantiate such contention put forward two fold contentions namely (1) the Assistant Controller of Patents having taken three independent expert evidences filed in the form of affidavits under Rule 60 of the Patent Rules 2003 on record has failed to forward the said expert evidences for the examination by the Board and (2) it is pointed out that the opposition board recommendations of October, 2008 and January, 2009 were not furnished to the appellant and they submitted that the said recommendation came to their knowledge only after passing the impugned common order on 30/04/2010. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
(3.) MR . Anand Grover, the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No. 06 and 07 in OA/28/2010/PT/CH would submit that the said respondent even made a request for furnishing of the recommendations of the Board and in spite of the specific request they have not been furnished with the copy of the recommendations. Mr. S. Majumdar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and;